Media Coverage of COVID -19

[bramling]

I've had to resort to commercial radio today and have been subjected to the full force of the Government's excrable stay at home COVID campaign.

I’m really sick of the latest “look them in the eye” TV adverts. Giving up a complete year of my life and taking a personal risk with Covid not missing a single day’s work clearly isn’t enough.

 

[yorksrob]

I’m really sick of the latest “look them in the eye” TV adverts. Giving up a complete year of my life and taking a personal risk with Covid not missing a single day’s work clearly isn’t enough.

Indeed. I "look my grocer in the eye" and tell her I'll have a pint of milk and a lottery ticket, thankyou. That's as far as the relationship goes.

 

[Bantamzen]

Fair play to Nick Triggle, who I do think is one of the more impartial BBC journalists on health here (he has quoted Carl Heneghan before as well for example): this article on the BBC landing page reports on many of the damaging aspects of our response to children, including impacts of school closures, mental health, lagging baby development and child abuse increases:

Covid: The devastating toll of the pandemic on children

The virus poses little risk to them, but young people are being harmed in many other ways.

www.bbc.co.uk

That's a really sobering article. Children have been abandoned, I wish people continuing to call for schools to remain closed would read this and take in it.

 

[Richard Scott]

That's a really sobering article. Children have been abandoned, I wish people continuing to call for schools to remain closed would read this and take in it.

This is what some of us have been trying to say for ages but some people still maintain schools are a big problem with transmission and should remain closed. Looks like they'll be an even bigger problem soon and it's one that shouldn't have been allowed to develop but the paranoia around this virus meant that didn't matter. Well it obviously does.

 

[Bantamzen]

This is what some of us have been trying to say for ages but some people still maintain schools are a big problem with transmission and should remain closed. Looks like they'll be an even bigger problem soon and it's one that shouldn't have been allowed to develop but the paranoia around this virus meant that didn't matter. Well it obviously does.

The trouble is that this will be a problem that will span generations. I dread to think of the psychological damage that is being done.

 

[initiation]

I dread to think of the psychological damage that is being done.

Yep. We have told millions of children over the last year that if they hug granny or grandad they could kill them. Unfortunately this damage will take years (decades) to resolve, if ever.

 

[Horizon22]

I’m really sick of the latest “look them in the eye” TV adverts. Giving up a complete year of my life and taking a personal risk with Covid not missing a single day’s work clearly isn’t enough.

Not see a TV ad, but I do walk past a "look them in the eye and tell them you can't work from home" poster at the bus stop on my way to work at 6am... It's essentially shaming key workers.

 

[kristiang85]

It's interesting to note this article from the Guardian - one of the most rabid pro-lockdown media outlets - almost exactly one year ago:

China's reaction to the coronavirus violates human rights | Frances Eve

The WHO has praised country’s response, but heavy-handed approach could make things worse

www.theguardian.com

When the World Health Organization declared the 2019nCoV coronavirus outbreak a global health emergency, it effusively praised China’s response to the outbreak. The WHO issued a statement welcoming the government’s “commitment to transparency”, and the WHO director general, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, tweeted: “China is actually setting a new standard for outbreak response.”

The WHO is ignoring Chinese government suppression of human rights regarding the outbreak, including severe restrictions on freedom of expression. In turn, Chinese state media are citing the WHO to defend its policies and try to silence criticism of its response to the outbreak, which has included rights violations that could make the situation worse.

China’s response to the outbreak included a month-long government cover-up in Wuhan, the centre of the outbreak, that led to the rapid spread of the coronavirus. Local authorities publicly announced that no new cases had been detected between 3-16 January in the lead up to a major Communist party meeting, likely to suppress “bad news”. Despite early evidence of human-to-human transmission when medical staff became infected, this information was not relayed to the public for weeks. Hardly a “commitment to transparency”.

Chinese police punished frontline doctors for “spreading rumours” for trying to warn the public in late December. Police are still engaged in a campaign to detain Chinese netizens for spreading so-called “rumours”. Rumours included reports of potential cases, including people turned away from hospitals or dying without ever being tested and quickly cremated, criticism of the government, the distribution of masks, or the criticism of the discrimination of people from Wuhan or others who may be infected. Activists have been threatened with jail if they share foreign news articles or post on social media about the coronavirus outbreak.

That the Chinese government can lock millions of people into cities with almost no advance notice should not be considered anything other than terrifying. The residents of Wuhan had no time to buy food, medicine, or other essentials. Authorities hastily announced the lockdown in the middle of the night with an eight-hour gap before it went into effect, giving people time to flee and thus raising questions on the rationale for such extreme measures.

International law is clear that during a time of public health emergency, any restrictions on human rights should be based on legality, necessity, proportionality and grounded in evidence.

The international community should support all efforts to end this outbreak, but human rights should not be a casualty to the coronavirus crisis. The WHO declares that core principles of human rights and health includes accountability, equality and non-discrimination and participation. It even acknowledges that “participation is important to accountability as it provides … checks and balances which do not allow unitary leadership to exercise power in an arbitrary manner”. The WHO’s admiration for the unitary actions of the Chinese dictator Xi Jinping exercising power in an arbitrary manner is a direct contradiction of its own human rights principles.

China is not a democracy and the people cannot remove their leaders from power for governance failures related to the coronavirus outbreak. People expressing discontent online can go to prison. There is no free press and journalists trying to report on the frontline are obstructed, detained, and their stories deleted from the internet. Medical staff are gagged. Civil society organisations decimated by Xi’s crackdowns on human rights cannot work on the frontlines to support hospitals and communities. Frightened netizens are labelled “rumour-mongers”.

This should not be the new standard for outbreak response. The WHO should abide by its own human rights principles and demand the Chinese government end its censorship and police suppression surrounding the coronavirus outbreak.

I've highlighted the bits that haven't aged well...

 

[6862]

It's interesting to note this article from the Guardian - one of the most rabid pro-lockdown media outlets - almost exactly one year ago:

China's reaction to the coronavirus violates human rights | Frances Eve

The WHO has praised country’s response, but heavy-handed approach could make things worse

www.theguardian.com

I've highlighted the bits that haven't aged well...

I'm surprised this article is still available to read! I'd imagine it's the sort of material some people would be quite keen to whitewash from history, as it shows that there might be something wrong with our response.

 

[scotrail158713]

It's interesting to note this article from the Guardian - one of the most rabid pro-lockdown media outlets - almost exactly one year ago:

China's reaction to the coronavirus violates human rights | Frances Eve

The WHO has praised country’s response, but heavy-handed approach could make things worse

www.theguardian.com

I've highlighted the bits that haven't aged well...

It’s bonkers, isn’t it?

I suppose one benefit of the internet is that content like this can be found again. If it was just an article in the physical paper then it’s unlikely anything would’ve been remembered about it now, and it would be impossible to find again.

 

[DerekC]

Can I recommend the BBC Radio 4/World Service programme "More or Less" for very clear and interesting information about all sorts of things related to Covid. I have recently listened to articles/podcasts on:

• The likely efficacy of one dose of the Pfizer vaccine
• Increase in the suicide rate during the pandemic
• Death rate now compared with the first wave
• Lateral flow versus PCD test accuracy
• Where are people catching the virus?
• Covid's impact on GDP

These and many more are available on the BBC Sounds app. I am not presenting the conclusions because the whole point of the articles is to enable people to know what is accurate and what isn't, so that we can make our own minds up.

 

[NorthOxonian]

Can I recommend the BBC Radio 4/World Service programme "More or Less" for very clear and interesting information about all sorts of things related to Covid. I have recently listened to articles/podcasts on:

• The likely efficacy of one dose of the Pfizer vaccine
• Increase in the suicide rate during the pandemic
• Death rate now compared with the first wave
• Lateral flow versus PCD test accuracy
• Where are people catching the virus?
• Covid's impact on GDP

These and many more are available on the BBC Sounds app. I am not presenting the conclusions because the whole point of the articles is to enable people to know what is accurate and what isn't, so that we can make our own minds up.

I can definitely second that. I remember back at the start of this when there was all sorts of hysteria about the death rate, More or Less had a fantastic discussion of which age groups were more affected and looked at how it was essentially the same as overall risk of death over the course of a year. That really put my mind at ease at the time.

 

[birchesgreen]

It's interesting to note this article from the Guardian - one of the most rabid pro-lockdown media outlets - almost exactly one year ago:

China's reaction to the coronavirus violates human rights | Frances Eve

The WHO has praised country’s response, but heavy-handed approach could make things worse

www.theguardian.com

I've highlighted the bits that haven't aged well...

The last year has shown what a farce our supposedly enlightened Western society is. I'd say foundations of sand but more like talcum powder.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

Interesting and slightly optimistic tone from this Sky News analysis

COVID-19: Some in Whitehall think every adult could be offered a COVID jab by May

There is enormous bullishness inside Whitehall at the progress of the vaccine rollout, writes Sky's Sam Coates.

news.sky.com

They also hint at a concern that government may well find it difficult to control the masses, once so many people have had the jab, regardless of what restrictions are still around come May...

Three weeks after the first jab, people will have a substantial level of protection. The infection rate is likely to drop swiftly, as will the rate of hospitalisations in March.

At this point, how will the government hold back people who have spent most of the last year indoors and enforce social distancing?

 

[brad465]

Interesting and slightly optimistic tone from this Sky News analysis

COVID-19: Some in Whitehall think every adult could be offered a COVID jab by May

There is enormous bullishness inside Whitehall at the progress of the vaccine rollout, writes Sky's Sam Coates.

news.sky.com

They also hint at a concern that government may well find it difficult to control the masses, once so many people have had the jab, regardless of what restrictions are still around come May...

I was seeing projections/other posts saying that at the current pace of vaccination, everyone in the top 9 groups will have at least one dose by just after Easter. If the effects this will have on hospital admissions and deaths combines with a reduction in infections due to seasonal changes, I can see the Covid stats at the time being very difficult to be pessimistic about in trying to justify restrictions remaining.

 

[102 fan]

Did anybody see the ITN National News tonight? Right at the end there was an article about Russell T Davies new TV drama about AIDS in the early 80's. Would you believe ITN tried to compare it to Covid 19? There is no comparison of the two. Is everything going to be compared this damned virus?

 

[Skimpot flyer]

Did anybody see the ITN National News tonight? Right at the end there was an article about Russell T Davies new TV drama about AIDS in the early 80's. Would you believe ITN tried to compare it to Covid 19? There is no comparison of the two. Is everything going to be compared this damned virus?

They should really try to avoid such comparisons like the Plague virus

 

[NorthOxonian]

Interesting and slightly optimistic tone from this Sky News analysis

COVID-19: Some in Whitehall think every adult could be offered a COVID jab by May

There is enormous bullishness inside Whitehall at the progress of the vaccine rollout, writes Sky's Sam Coates.

news.sky.com

They also hint at a concern that government may well find it difficult to control the masses, once so many people have had the jab, regardless of what restrictions are still around come May...

I can well believe it. The government are going to throw the kitchen sink at this, because the economic and social benefits of being the first major nation fully vaccinated are absolutely immense. Forget Rishi Sunak, I now think Nadhim Zahawi will be the minister to come out of this with the best reputation.

 

[bengley]

This new South African variant is receiving significant media coverage at the moment, clearly scaremongering and softening us for keeping the restrictions in place for longer.

Out of curiosity I had a look at the infection and death rates for South Africa. A country of only 8 million less than the UK, their infection and death rates are both lower than ours.

 

[yorksrob]

This new South African variant is receiving significant media coverage at the moment, clearly scaremongering and softening us for keeping the restrictions in place for longer.

Out of curiosity I had a look at the infection and death rates for South Africa. A country of only 8 million less than the UK, their infection and death rates are both lower than ours.

Yes, the one thing that we know for sure about the variant from South Africa is that it will result in us being in lockdown for longer.

 

[bengley]

Another thing I learned the other day - hospitalisation figures are worked out in the same way as death rates.

The people in hospital have been admitted for any reason and subsequently, or previously tested positive for COVID, but they could have just been admitted to hospital for something like a broken leg.

Presumably if those people are positive for COVID, but asymptomatic and with a broken leg being their main ailment, they are moved to a COVID ward to protect other non-covid patients. Could this be why the NHS is 'overrun'? COVID wards full of people recovering from non-covid related illnesses..?

 

[jtuk]

Another thing I learned the other day - hospitalisation figures are worked out in the same way as death rates.

The people in hospital have been admitted for any reason and subsequently, or previously tested positive for COVID, but they could have just been admitted to hospital for something like a broken leg.

Presumably if those people are positive for COVID, but asymptomatic and with a broken leg being their main ailment, they are moved to a COVID ward to protect other non-covid patients. Could this be why the NHS is 'overrun'? COVID wards full of people recovering from non-covid related illnesses..?

That, and staff staying off sick "with Covid" when everyone in the hospital has it anyway

 

[Domh245]

Could this be why the NHS is 'overrun'? COVID wards full of people recovering from non-covid related illnesses..?

That doesn't explain the significantly higher than usual admission rates, or ICUs running at ~2x normal occupancy

 

[bengley]

That doesn't explain the significantly higher than usual admission rates, or ICUs running at ~2x normal occupancy

Are those stats even reliable? So many unreliable and misleading statistics are being put out now I just don't know whether any of them are trustworthy. There has been so much manipulation of figures to scare people into compliance.

 

[Domh245]

Are those stats even reliable? So many unreliable and misleading statistics are being put out now I just don't know whether any of them are trustworthy. There has been so much manipulation of figures to scare people into compliance.

I don't see any reason why the ICU stats shouldn't be reliable. They're a simple measure of beds open and occupied (so no with/because of/caught-whilst-here shenanigans), reported by each trust to NHS England. It's fairly niche - not being a government published data, you have to go digging for it so there's no real benefit to fiddling it, but it does also tie in to the stories about ICU being under the most stress, as well as other ICU reporting. Just to show the scale of it, here's all hospitals in the London NHS region - both the South East and East of England regions are similar, with all other regions (bar NE & Yorkshire) showing an increase in occupied beds above the normal number of beds open, but not double the normal



Of course, it could be that each trust is fiddling it's numbers to try and drive compliance to keep the country locked down, but Occams razor and all that

As an aside, if you just looked at ICU rates, you'd think it was entirely normal but that quite clearly doesn't reflect the situation on the ground

 

[kez19]

I only caught GMB briefly this morning hyping up the South African variant, what I had to laugh at was when Piers said, why didn't we close out borders like everyone else?

I realised when he had opened his mouth I said to myself, I don't get what he is moaning for he flew off to Antigua and he be more than likely to have moaned like hell if flights had stopped.

I think the UK media in general love this as well as creating a storm in a teacup, push the fear further its pretty sad.

Those Government "public shaming" ads are hypocritical aren't they not? Aimed at public.

I'll alter a few....
Can Magaret Ferrier look at the passengers eyes as she travelled between Glasgow and London TWICE by train?

Can Piers Morgan look at the flight crews eyes as he flew to Antigua?
Can he also look at the peoples eyes in Antigua and say he might be spreading COVID-19?
Can all the politicians/governments look into peoples eyes and say that if mistakes have been made and own up to them? (than play a game of shifting blame onto others?)
Can the UK media look into peoples eyes and stop spreading fear and actually provide facts than blow out of proportion?
Can the UK media look into peoples eyes and ask why they keep on using the same people from SAGE and other related agencies in spreading the fear (balanced approach).

 

[nlogax]

Can Piers Morgan look at the flight crews eyes as he flew to Antigua?

Please, let's not get into the fallacy that under the skin, Piers Morgan has anything close to a conscience or principles.

 

[kez19]

Please, let's not get into the fallacy that under the skin, Piers Morgan has anything close to a conscience or principles.

I think in general do we think anyone in the media has a conscience/principles in this scaremongering? As for Piers, I can't stand the guy but was surprised why he was moaning in the first place and yet I am surprised why ITV have still have him on but alas I forget GMB needs its ratings so lets keep a hold on him to ramp up the fear.

 

[brad465]

The BBC are at least giving coverage to another downside of our Covid response, a visible increase in alcohol-related deaths:

Alcohol deaths hit record high during Covid pandemic

The figures for England and Wales cover the first nine months of 2020.

www.bbc.co.uk

Deaths caused by alcohol hit a new high during the first nine months of 2020, provisional figures for England and Wales show.

Between January and September, 5,460 of these deaths causes were registered - up 16% on the same months in 2019.

It is the biggest toll recorded since the records began in 2001.

The high rates spanned the period during and after first Covid lockdown, the Office for National Statistics figures show.

It reached a peak of 12.8 deaths per 100,000 people in the first three months of 2020 and remained at this level through to September - higher than in any other time on record.

As in past years, rates of male alcohol-specific deaths were twice those seen for women.

Experts say the coronavirus pandemic will have had little effect on how the data was gathered and recorded.

It is not clear how much it may have contributed to the deaths, however.

ONS spokesman Ben Humberstone said: "Today's data shows that in the first three quarters of 2020, alcohol-specific deaths in England and Wales reached the highest level since the beginning of our data series, with April to September, during and after the first lockdown, seeing higher rates compared to the same period in
previous years."

"The reasons for this are complex and it will take time before the impact the pandemic has had on alcohol-specific deaths is fully understood."

The UK's Addiction Treatment Group said it knew first hand how many people have struggled with alcohol since the pandemic began. "We must remember that what we're talking about here aren't just figures; they're people," said Nuno Albuquerque, head of treatment at the group.

"They're mums, dads, brothers, sisters, friends, colleagues and neighbours who have lost their lives to alcohol; a substance so widely accepted and almost encouraged in this country but one so controlling, addictive and, ultimately, life-threatening."

Also worth noting this only runs up to September, so who knows how bad it will be thanks to the winter period and two further lockdowns.

 

[kristiang85]

Who would have thought it? forcing people out of regulated drinking environments and into their own homes with no support and cheap booze would result in an increase in alcoholism deaths.

I'm absoutely dreading the in depth cancer statistics that are due in July.